TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s SACHDE ROADLINES, REPRESENTED THROUGH DINESH DHIRAJBHAI THACKER Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2026 (4) TMI 204 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTquashed the proceedings as all the notices, show cause notice, and orders were sent to the old address, even when the Petitioner informed about the updated new address in GST registration, stating that such failures violated principles of natural justice, thus directed fresh proceedings.
Facts:
M/s Sachde Roadlines (‘the Petitioner’) was a registered taxpayer who had intimated the change of address in 2017 to the department, which was also reflected in FORM GST REG 06.
The Union of India & Ors. (‘the Respondent’), through GST authorities, issued the demand-cum show-cause notice and all other subsequent communications to old address and were not received by the Petitioner.
Later, the Order-in-original was passed without service to the correct address. When the Petitioner learned about the order, an appeal was filed in Form ST-4 mentioning the new address and raising the issue of non-service of notices.
However, the appellate authority ignored the Petitioner’s plea and again sent the order to the old address following which the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court, aggrieved by the denial of opportunity to defend the case.
Issue:
Whether the proceedings and orders are valid if show cause notice and communications are served at the old address even when the department is informed by the taxpayer about the new updated address.
Held:
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in M/s SACHDE ROADLINES, REPRESENTED THROUGH DINESH DHIRAJBHAI THACKER Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2026 (4) TMI 204 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTheld as under:
- Observed that the Petitioner had already intimidated the change of address in 2017 and the it was also reflected in Form GST REG – 6.
- Noted that all the Show Cause Notice (“SCN”), adjudication order and the appellate order were all sent to the old address even when the department has updated new records and failed to communicate and serve notices correctly.
- Held that improver service of notice violated the principles of natural justice and deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend the case.
- Held that without a proper service of notice, the proceedings cannot be sustained in law, therefore quashed the show cause notice, order-in-original and the appellate order.
- Directed the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Our comments:
The judgement highlights a deep issue in GST, whether procedural compliance by the department is as important as it is for taxpayers. Because the authorities defeat the very purpose of provisions by ignoring the updated GST registration details, and thus violates the principle of audi alteram partem which says that it is necessary to hear the other side.
This judgement highlights the importance of proper service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act because if notices and orders are sent to the wrong address despite updated GST registration details, the entire proceedings become invalid due to violation of natural justice.
The present judgement also protects taxpayers from ex-parte orders. It also sends a clear message to GST authorities that administrative workload or bulk assessments cannot justify procedural negligence.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.
(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-
(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or
(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or
(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
(d) by making it available on the common portal; or
(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.”
(Author can be reached at [email protected])